Excuse me... Senna started racing in 1984 or '85 whereas Scumacher began his career mid '91. At the time of Senna's death, Schumacher hadn't won a championship. He won his first championship the year Senna died.

I'm not taking anything away from Schumacher's success by the way.

Jordan sucked in '91Benetton was a great car in '92 & '93, but they were mediocre compared to the Williams'94 was the first real time he had a contender car.

We can't say what would've happened with Schumacher if Senna was arround, but you just have to look at Button or Vettel in recent years, you don't need to be the best driver arround to win championships, and Michael was in a very very good position for most of his carreer.

Excuse me... Senna started racing in 1984 or '85 whereas Scumacher began his career mid '91. At the time of Senna's death, Schumacher hadn't won a championship. He won his first championship the year Senna died.

I'm not taking anything away from Schumacher's success by the way.

You misunderstood my post.

When Senna had 10 seasons in F1, he had 3 WDC titles. When Schumacher had 10 seasons in F1 he had 3 titles. Had Senna avoided his tragic death he would most likely ended his career with 5 titles, maybe 6 and he would probably take away one or maybe even two titles from Schumacher. It is very likely that those two would end their careers with 5-6 titles each, therefore people are often mentioning the 'Senna/Schumacher level'.

Jordan sucked in '91Benetton was a great car in '92 & '93, but they were mediocre compared to the Williams'94 was the first real time he had a contender car.

We can't say what would've happened with Schumacher if Senna was arround, but you just have to look at Button or Vettel in recent years, you don't need to be the best driver arround to win championships, and Michael was in a very very good position for most of his carreer.

The main reason why Senna is rated as same level as Schumacher is because his career ended too early and not through his own fault. It has nothing to do with lesser competition, superior machinery or unsporting behavior. At the time Schumacher was as long in F1 as Senna at time of his tragic death, they were approximately equally successful with 3 titles each and this is the main reason Senna gets rated so highly.

Considering that Fernando has driven for 4 different constructors (Minardi, Renault/TWICE, McLaren & Ferrari), the fact that he is ALWAYS THERE is down to his talent and ability to maximize his results, no matter what the machinery. Fernando can always be relied on to consistently get the best out of himself and his car, even when that equipment is not the best...THAT is why he is rated THE BEST by so many!

As for those wondering what might have happened if McLaren had worked out better, or if he'd decided to go to Red Bull, I don't mind. By going back to Renault in '08, and being the driver to score the most points in the 2nd half of the season, and what he's managed to do at Ferrari over the past 2.5 seasons, has allowed him to show his worth. Vettel's success is still (Unfairly IMO) often put down to a Newey-built car...can't win when not on front row...etc. Even Schumacher, despite his Mega-Success, is still not rated as high as Senna, due to the (lesser)competition he faced, the superior machinery he won in while at the Scuderia (People seem to forget his brilliance at Benetton!), and his unsporting behavior on track. I believe that path Alonso has traveled has given him the opportunity to prove what a legend he was...once we have the chance to look back on, and relish his career.

Taken all things into consideration I very much hope that Fernando will romp up his five WDCs, as he is definitely that category of a driver. A pity it did not happen at McLaren, as there is very few drivers who won WDCs (and indeed GPs) at more than two teams.

Concerning the above, yeah, it would have been Senna with 6 WDCs and duly Schumacher with 5 WDCs, had fate not intervened.

Staying in my imaginary world (my excuses for going to that length) that would have resulted in

which would seem the most representative to me. The only missing element here is Jim Clark and what might have been for him. He definitely should be up there as well.

Ending my journey into fantasyland, this is representative of how I rate Fernando in the grand scheme of things (possibly just Senna and Fangio ahead of him) and how the Top Ten should look like, Jim Clark's position sadly remaining undefined. And a little snap at the ridiculous BBC Top 20 Drivers of all Time.

Taken all things into consideration I very much hope that Fernando will romp up his five WDCs, as he is definitely that category of a driver. A pity it did not happen at McLaren, as there is very few drivers who won WDCs (and indeed GPs) at more than two teams.

Concerning the above, yeah, it would have been Senna with 6 WDCs and duly Schumacher with 5 WDCs, had fate not intervened.

Staying in my imaginary world (my excuses for going to that length) that would have resulted in

which would seem the most representative to me. The only missing element here is Jim Clark and what might have been for him. He definitely should be up there as well.

Ending my journey into fantasyland, this is representative of how I rate Fernando in the grand scheme of things (possibly just Senna and Fangio ahead of him) and how the Top Ten should look like, Jim Clark's position sadly remaining undefined. And a little snap at the ridiculous BBC Top 20 Drivers of all Time.

The main reason why Senna is rated as same level as Schumacher is because his career ended too early and not through his own fault. It has nothing to do with lesser competition, superior machinery or unsporting behavior. At the time Schumacher was as long in F1 as Senna at time of his tragic death, they were approximately equally successful with 3 titles each and this is the main reason Senna gets rated so highly.

Having watched Senna race from 1988 and Schumacher from his first, one-off stint in a Jordan, I think I'd have to agree with most pundits who place Senna ABOVE Schumi in their career hierarchy. Senna wasn't perfect. His deliberate crashing into Prost to win the title was despicable, and will always be a stain on his legacy. He also made a number of unforced errors, but his driving was magical. He also benefitted from the level of competition (Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Rosberg, Alesi, Berger, Nannini). The first 3 or 4 are all-time legends in their own right, while the others were strong drivers when in the right equipment. Beating them-- as Senna often did--but also losing to them, helped cement and elevate in our minds the quality of the drivers and racing during that period. Unfortunately for MS, for much of his career he had insufficient competition and had a truly dominant and reliable Ferrari. He had Prost and Mansell at the tail end of their careers, and Ayrton and Mika for too brief a period. But he battled Villeneuve, Coulthard, Kimi, Montoya and Ralf most of it. Of those men, only Kimi "might" land as an all-time great, so Michael loses out a bit on that in comparison to Senna. Alonso, and all the current pilots are driving in a golden era, 6 WDCs, with Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso rated by many as the current best. Right now, and for the past couple of years, I believe Fernando has shown how good he is in a car that is considered lacking compared to both Sebastian and Lewis. That is what has helped to build his legend. To cement it, though, Fernando has to win more WDCs against them. That's all I was saying.

If you agree with that view do you think Jaques was a better than his father Gilles? ......

[Confusion period ends]

....raise my case.

But I never said Schumacher > Senna, nor did I say that this (titles won) is applicable to all driver comparisons, but it is applicable to most, and IMHO it is applicable to Senna/Schumacher comparisons in the way I formulated it (with Senna 10 year career being quite similar to Schumachers first 10 years in F1 and this being the reason those two form same 'category'). With Gilles it is quite obvious that he didn't have the time to build his career. Had he gone 15 seasons in F1 without a title won, then retired it would certianly be another case.

When the Renault was good, he delivered the championships. Even at McLaren, he scored four wins. Right now, the place to be is Red Bull and that might continue for a while.

But he had a WDC capable cars in both 2007. and 2010. and he didn't deliver. Many people forget that he had fairly average start of 2010. when RBR was not yet that dominant and had reliability issues, and a special driver would certianly handle last race of 2010 better. And in 2007. McLaren he didn't manage pressure of expected wins coupled with young and fired up Lewis Hamilton. He came close both in 2010. and 2007. in the end, and it shows that he is great, I'm just not convinced he is Senna-great or Schumacher-great, we still need to see this in finish of his career. 2012. certianly looks like going into his favor for now.

But he had a WDC capable cars in both 2007. and 2010. and he didn't deliver. Many people forget that he had fairly average start of 2010. when RBR was not yet that dominant and had reliability issues, and a special driver would certianly handle last race of 2010 better. And in 2007. McLaren he didn't manage pressure of expected wins coupled with young and fired up Lewis Hamilton. He came close both in 2010. and 2007. in the end, and it shows that he is great, I'm just not convinced he is Senna-great or Schumacher-great, we still need to see this in finish of his career. 2012. certianly looks like going into his favor for now.

Oh please.

I wouldn't call a car that can only get 2 poles in a year a WDC capable car. Fernando capitalised other's mistakes as always, and that's what almost got him a WDC.

Saying other than that is BS

You're right about 2007 tough, he failed to deliver having Hamilton as a team-mate and an environment which he didn't like, probably his worst year in his career. Still, every driver has its "downs", and after all, he finished 1 point after the WDC and tied in points with his team-mate.

I wouldn't call a car that can only get 2 poles in a year a WDC capable car.

Sure you can. Quali pace is not the same as race pace, especially not with EBD which would dry your tank out way before the end of the race if you used it as powerfull as the day before.The Ferrari had 5 victories and even Massa could have a go for the win here and there. That was a WDC capable car.

Kimi just missed the WDC in a car with only 2 poles, 1 victory and bad reliability. Alonso had a far from flawless season and saying other than THAT is BS.

Sure you can. Quali pace is not the same as race pace, especially not with EBD which would dry your tank out way before the end of the race if you used it as powerfull as the day before.The Ferrari had 5 victories and even Massa could have a go for the win here and there. That was a WDC capable car.

Kimi just missed the WDC in a car with only 2 poles, 1 victory and bad reliability. Alonso had a far from flawless season and saying other than THAT is BS.

RedBull wasn't as dominant in races as in qualy, you're right, but they were still the fastest car in race, and starting from first positions is a big advantage, specially if you want easy races.

Ferrari had 5 victories, yes, as oposed as RedBull's 9? Almost the double, I would call that dominance ;)

About Kimi, I don't know what are you talking about, seriously, he wasn't even there in 2010

It doesn't matter, that won't mean anything for a lot of people here, since they'll just find excuses (in fact they are doing already that with the "luck" thing) in order to try to paint his championship as worthless. As it happened in 2005 and 2006 by certain profile of F1 fans or by certain fans from certain drivers...

But he had a WDC capable cars in both 2007. and 2010. and he didn't deliver. Many people forget that he had fairly average start of 2010. when RBR was not yet that dominant and had reliability issues, and a special driver would certianly handle last race of 2010 better. And in 2007. McLaren he didn't manage pressure of expected wins coupled with young and fired up Lewis Hamilton. He came close both in 2010. and 2007. in the end, and it shows that he is great, I'm just not convinced he is Senna-great or Schumacher-great, we still need to see this in finish of his career. 2012. certianly looks like going into his favor for now.

You know that Schumacher lost championships at the final race on two occasions too. Remember that?

You can explain again if you wish how if you press a little the throttle it will go to 100% gasses...

Do you think we´re all the same? Maybe you missed it, but I already openly admired I was wrong there, in that particular point. I don´t have any problem to rectify a mistake, as I don´t have agenda

Can you do that? No, you said a ton stupidities in that thread (Stowe being flat, "most" of Silverstone fast corners not needing lifting, EBD being little help on fast circuits...) yet didn´t retract from any. Here again, you said Kimi´s driving was roughest than Alonso´s, which is just laughable.

Kimi didn´t have any off, contact, or mistakes. He had done 10% racing distance. Driveshaft failed on him. As simple as that. He wasn´t harder on the curbs than any other driver of the grid, in fact if you payed some attention, he´s a driver that doesn´t like attacking curbs hard, unlike Alonso, to use a well-known example. You can try all you want, but it´s impossible to spin. It was a mechanical misfortune. Rewatch the race, he didn´t do anything bizarre at all. Blaming him can just come from having an agenda, or plain ignorance on what a driveshaft is designed to cope with. The thing has to race Monza, and has showed time after time it can resist getting airborne big time. If it breaks running over something a low speed, or under normal efforts, it´s just a component failure. About Imola, you´re welcome but I don´t need a random guy from another forum how the track is, I know perfectly. And it´s less hard on curbs than Monza, Magny Cours, Melbourne, Canada... Again, I don´t need a blogger to tell me if Kimi was attacking the curbs too hard, I was watching.

So, since you do not deserve replies, don't bother looking for one, at least from me, in this or any other thread.

Your decission. I´ve no problem debating with anyone. You´ll get replies, and once you´re not butthurt anymore, do the same if you wish. Cheers.

is not that. It is just I don't think it is necessary to repeat what has already been said . I am not really sure what you were expecting and you also did not ask the question so why are you so interested ?

is not that. It is just I don't think it is necessary to repeat what has already been said . I am not really sure what you were expecting and you also did not ask the question so why are you so interested ?

Because I thought it an interesting question given the how you dismissed the way someone else formed their opinion.

Because I thought it an interesting question given the how you dismissed the way someone else formed their opinion.

I dismissed it and I later pointed out why that logic does not apply in some cases therefore we should consider bringing in other arguments. There is really no point in me telling you what we should be looking at because we all analyze races and drivers differently and what some may consider good qualities others may see them as weaknesses.

But he had a WDC capable cars in both 2007. and 2010. and he didn't deliver. Many people forget that he had fairly average start of 2010. when RBR was not yet that dominant and had reliability issues, and a special driver would certianly handle last race of 2010 better. And in 2007. McLaren he didn't manage pressure of expected wins coupled with young and fired up Lewis Hamilton. He came close both in 2010. and 2007. in the end, and it shows that he is great, I'm just not convinced he is Senna-great or Schumacher-great, we still need to see this in finish of his career. 2012. certianly looks like going into his favor for now.

Your comments are normally a joke but coming from and extreme McLaren fanatic it's nothing surprising. In 2007 he had the car but he had no team and the team would make sure he would not win the title. Talking about pressure, actually his tires felt the pressure in China, not him. He fought the hardest in a hostile environment and bounced back from the Canada race step by step until his team started 'racing him' and let their preferred driver break the team rules and gave full support to him. RB being not dominant in 2010 is another superb joke, and saying the Ferrari 2010 was a championship winning car is beyond fun, have you thought to do some comedy? The only "normal" thing you wrote is RB had some reliability issues, but RB had an extremely dominant car, only that they made a number of mistakes and had that reliability issues here and there otherwise they would've wiped out the field much earlier and with zero thrill.

You're missing my point. I'm just saying that you can't complain about Alonso having nog enough luck.(and of course Vettel can only win from pole. He's on P1 every goddamn saterday when his car is capable of winning)

Being a Kimi fan for the last 10 years, and a Seb fan during Kimi's WRC adventures, one starts to wonder how many times Alonso has claimed victory over the mechanical issues of you're idol. After Korea '10 I thought 'OMG AGAIN ALONSO?' and I just made a list. Thought it was 31% or something.

Now, this explains a lot...

Look, Jee Pee: that McLaren car that Raikkonen drove was the fastest car in the grid. Yet you only focus on it being unreliable - well, Raikkonen did not finish in three races, not 8 or 9. If you are going to claim that Alonso was lucky because of McLaren's poorer reliability, you'll have to agree that Raikkonen was equally lucky because of the car's greater speed - so the luck factor cancels out. I am a bit tired of that "Kimi should have won 2005 but he was let down by the car" mantra, as if the speed was all thanks to Raikkonen but the reliability all to be blamed on the car.

As for your comment that Vettel "on P1 every goddamn saterday when his car is capable of winning", some people tend to think that it is rather him only winning when his car is so superior that there is no chance anyone else would be on pole We'll find out who is right one of these days...

But he had a WDC capable cars in both 2007. and 2010. and he didn't deliver. Many people forget that he had fairly average start of 2010. when RBR was not yet that dominant and had reliability issues, and a special driver would certianly handle last race of 2010 better. And in 2007. McLaren he didn't manage pressure of expected wins coupled with young and fired up Lewis Hamilton. He came close both in 2010. and 2007. in the end, and it shows that he is great, I'm just not convinced he is Senna-great or Schumacher-great, we still need to see this in finish of his career. 2012. certianly looks like going into his favor for now.

He didn't deliver - really? I mean, he lost WDC by one point in 2007 in the midst of the McLaren implosion, and he lost 2010 by 4 points versus the two cars that had copend all poles but 4 out of 19, and he did not deliver? Having a WDC-capable car is all fine, but there is a difference between the circumstances Alonso faced in 2007 and 2010, and the ones Schumacher faced at Ferrari...

He didn't deliver - really? I mean, he lost WDC by one point in 2007 in the midst of the McLaren implosion, and he lost 2010 by 4 points versus the two cars that had copend all poles but 4 out of 19, and he did not deliver? Having a WDC-capable car is all fine, but there is a difference between the circumstances Alonso faced in 2007 and 2010, and the ones Schumacher faced at Ferrari...

He didn't deliver - really? I mean, he lost WDC by one point in 2007 in the midst of the McLaren implosion, and he lost 2010 by 4 points versus the two cars that had copend all poles but 4 out of 19, and he did not deliver? Having a WDC-capable car is all fine, but there is a difference between the circumstances Alonso faced in 2007 and 2010, and the ones Schumacher faced at Ferrari...

(See, we are arguing again! )

I think when Michael joined ferrari - he had more of an uphill battle than Alonso has had to endure... and still he was in the hunt

I'm not sure it's comparable to the car Fernando had in 2007... yes there was internal turmoil, but the fact is, a rookie matched him. I love Fernando, but you can't deny he did have the car in 2007...and the Ferrari in 2010 was not as bad as the Ferrari MSC inherited...and still won with

He didn't deliver - really? I mean, he lost WDC by one point in 2007 in the midst of the McLaren implosion, and he lost 2010 by 4 points versus the two cars that had copend all poles but 4 out of 19, and he did not deliver? Having a WDC-capable car is all fine, but there is a difference between the circumstances Alonso faced in 2007 and 2010, and the ones Schumacher faced at Ferrari...

(See, we are arguing again! )

Well, people forget that Alonso started 2007. as practically #1 driver at McLaren. Hamilton only wanted to win a race in his first season, Ron said that he only expects Hamilton to be as fit as possible and to do his simulator hours. Alonso failed to deliver in 2007., wheter someone likes it or not, he should have beaten Lewis in first 5-6 races and established himself as a boss in the team. He failed to do that.

In 2010. Vettel and Hamilton too had just a few bad races - in the end Alonso wasn't worse than Vettel or Hamilton, but he wasn't better than them too. He missed those two titles by a little bit, but he did miss them. As a Hamilton fan, I could find same excuses for his 2007. or 2010. - faced strongest driver in F1 in 2007., had gearbox issue in last race of season. And in 2010. had reliability issues and not the fastest car out there. But I'm not doing that because I know that if Hamilton was indeed better than all others - he would win both 2007. (by not binning it in China for example) and 2010.(by being smarter in Monza and Singapore) - he just isn't. Same goes for Alonso wheter you people like it or not.

Now, this explains a lot...

Look, Jee Pee: that McLaren car that Raikkonen drove was the fastest car in the grid. Yet you only focus on it being unreliable - well, Raikkonen did not finish in three races, not 8 or 9. If you are going to claim that Alonso was lucky because of McLaren's poorer reliability, you'll have to agree that Raikkonen was equally lucky because of the car's greater speed - so the luck factor cancels out. I am a bit tired of that "Kimi should have won 2005 but he was let down by the car" mantra, as if the speed was all thanks to Raikkonen but the reliability all to be blamed on the car.

I guess you didn't watch that season a lot, Kimi also had to start a bunch of races with +10 spots in quali because they changed the engine so it wouldn't fail on Sunday. And I agree with Alonso (he said this in an interview when asked about his luck) on this, it wasn't luck - McLaren simply built an unreliable car. Partly it could have been influenced by Kimi driving style, but also - if Kimi were a better/faster driver perhaps McLaren could have made the car a bit slower but more reliable and Kimi would beat Alonso - but he didn't. Many McLaren fans blame Mercedes, many Alonso haters blame Alonso being lucky, but I suspect that that car was built so it falls apart as it enters the finishing line on purpose.

Your comments are normally a joke but coming from and extreme McLaren fanatic it's nothing surprising. In 2007 he had the car but he had no team and the team would make sure he would not win the title. Talking about pressure, actually his tires felt the pressure in China, not him.

I'm sorry to have stated that he had WDC capable machinery and failed to win 2007 and 2010. I know the facts sometimes hurt

As for China 2007., funny you don't think McLaren sabotaged Lewis by leaving him on destroyed tyres in the same China race you mention.

You know that Schumacher lost championships at the final race on two occasions too. Remember that?

Definitely. Senna wasn't perfect either, if I may say so. But for Alonso to be compared with those (and guys like Prost, Fangio, etc.) he does need to win more titles. His F1 career is already longer then Senna's and he is still to win that 3rd title. Like I said 2012. looks like it could be his season, and if he wins it my respect for him will grow massively.

Well, people forget that Alonso started 2007. as practically #1 driver at McLaren. Hamilton only wanted to win a race in his first season, Ron said that he only expects Hamilton to be as fit as possible and to do his simulator hours. Alonso failed to deliver in 2007., wheter someone likes it or not, he should have beaten Lewis in first 5-6 races and established himself as a boss in the team. He failed to do that.

In 2010. Vettel and Hamilton too had just a few bad races - in the end Alonso wasn't worse than Vettel or Hamilton, but he wasn't better than them too. He missed those two titles by a little bit, but he did miss them. As a Hamilton fan, I could find same excuses for his 2007. or 2010. - faced strongest driver in F1 in 2007., had gearbox issue in last race of season. And in 2010. had reliability issues and not the fastest car out there. But I'm not doing that because I know that if Hamilton was indeed better than all others - he would win both 2007. (by not binning it in China for example) and 2010.(by being smarter in Monza and Singapore) - he just isn't. Same goes for Alonso wheter you people like it or not.

Don't be silly, Fernando was far better than Vettel in 2010

He finished 4 points behind him with a far worse car (a car that only got 2 poles as opposed to 15 and 5 wins as opposed to 9). If you ask me, he did an awesome job, compared to Vettel.

Well, people forget that Alonso started 2007. as practically #1 driver at McLaren. Hamilton only wanted to win a race in his first season, Ron said that he only expects Hamilton to be as fit as possible and to do his simulator hours. Alonso failed to deliver in 2007., wheter someone likes it or not, he should have beaten Lewis in first 5-6 races and established himself as a boss in the team. He failed to do that.

In 2010. Vettel and Hamilton too had just a few bad races - in the end Alonso wasn't worse than Vettel or Hamilton, but he wasn't better than them too. He missed those two titles by a little bit, but he did miss them. As a Hamilton fan, I could find same excuses for his 2007. or 2010. - faced strongest driver in F1 in 2007., had gearbox issue in last race of season. And in 2010. had reliability issues and not the fastest car out there. But I'm not doing that because I know that if Hamilton was indeed better than all others - he would win both 2007. (by not binning it in China for example) and 2010.(by being smarter in Monza and Singapore) - he just isn't. Same goes for Alonso wheter you people like it or not.

Sure, they're all the same.

When putting Hamilton head and shoulders above the rest (as regularily propagated by your kind during the first years of his F1 career) becomes too obviously hilarious, let's at least try and pull everyone else down to his level, eh?

I doubt anyone outside his hardcore fan circle buys it, though, and not even everyone inside that circle. There's no question that Hamilton can beat everyone on any given day, he certainly has the ability and skill for it. Yet if you look at the two obvious other candidates for top spot among the drivers Alonso and Vettel, they never remotely had a season like Hamiltons 2011 where he basically wasted a competitive car and was soundly smashed by his teammate. They also have far fewer encounters with other drivers. They also don't have Hamiltons record of making decisive driving mistakes near the end of a WDC campaign.

He finished 4 points behind him with a far worse car (a car that only got 2 poles as opposed to 15 and 5 wins as opposed to 9). If you ask me, he did an awesome job, compared to Vettel.

Yeah, but he binned it in Monaco, binned it in Spa, jumped the start in China, etc. The first half of his season was very erratic. The second half was brilliant. All the drivers in 2010 had their ups and downs and none of them, imo, was clearly better than the rest. So I think the Hamilton fan has a point.

Well, people forget that Alonso started 2007. as practically #1 driver at McLaren. Hamilton only wanted to win a race in his first season, Ron said that he only expects Hamilton to be as fit as possible and to do his simulator hours. Alonso failed to deliver in 2007., wheter someone likes it or not, he should have beaten Lewis in first 5-6 races and established himself as a boss in the team. He failed to do that.

In 2010. Vettel and Hamilton too had just a few bad races - in the end Alonso wasn't worse than Vettel or Hamilton, but he wasn't better than them too. He missed those two titles by a little bit, but he did miss them. As a Hamilton fan, I could find same excuses for his 2007. or 2010. - faced strongest driver in F1 in 2007., had gearbox issue in last race of season. And in 2010. had reliability issues and not the fastest car out there. But I'm not doing that because I know that if Hamilton was indeed better than all others - he would win both 2007. (by not binning it in China for example) and 2010.(by being smarter in Monza and Singapore) - he just isn't. Same goes for Alonso wheter you people like it or not.

Alonso has had two sub-par half seasons (actually, a handful of races each). They both happened after moving to a new team and in both cases he had a strong second half of the season (very strong in 2010) resulting in 3rd and 2nd place championship finishes. I have no problem with this being pointed out, but it hardly defines his career. I also don't think it is going to happen again, or has been relevant for the last two years, unlike weaknesses exhibited by some other drivers.

It is the mark of a great driver that he hauls himself into contention for the championship over many seasons. In these tight championships, it is inevitable that you win some, lose some (same for Schumacher, Senna, Prost, Hamilton, Vettel). This is Alonso's fifth serious championship challenge by my count. Schumacher's fifth championship challenge was in 1999 at the age of 30. Alonso turns 31 this month. There is no huge gap between Alonso and Schumacher. For the future, I suspect Alonso is competing in a more competitive era, but we will see.

Having watched Senna race from 1988 and Schumacher from his first, one-off stint in a Jordan, I think I'd have to agree with most pundits who place Senna ABOVE Schumi in their career hierarchy. Senna wasn't perfect. His deliberate crashing into Prost to win the title was despicable, and will always be a stain on his legacy. He also made a number of unforced errors, but his driving was magical. He also benefitted from the level of competition (Piquet, Mansell, Prost, Rosberg, Alesi, Berger, Nannini). The first 3 or 4 are all-time legends in their own right, while the others were strong drivers when in the right equipment. Beating them-- as Senna often did--but also losing to them, helped cement and elevate in our minds the quality of the drivers and racing during that period. Unfortunately for MS, for much of his career he had insufficient competition and had a truly dominant and reliable Ferrari. He had Prost and Mansell at the tail end of their careers, and Ayrton and Mika for too brief a period. But he battled Villeneuve, Coulthard, Kimi, Montoya and Ralf most of it. Of those men, only Kimi "might" land as an all-time great, so Michael loses out a bit on that in comparison to Senna. Alonso, and all the current pilots are driving in a golden era, 6 WDCs, with Vettel, Hamilton and Alonso rated by many as the current best. Right now, and for the past couple of years, I believe Fernando has shown how good he is in a car that is considered lacking compared to both Sebastian and Lewis. That is what has helped to build his legend. To cement it, though, Fernando has to win more WDCs against them. That's all I was saying.

WAAAY OFF TOPIC. Sorry to all.

When the field is bunched together for the last few years and in the past... many all time greats are made out of it. Why? We have to put value in what is being seen. If Mansell is so great and he is beaten regularly by another driver, then that other driver must be great.... etc. etc.

When one driver is dominating to the points where rules and points systems have to be changed to prevent this domination ... then nothing great can be said about those being dominated, now can it?

It's all very relative and most amusingly so. This is what makes the world go around. This is what entertainment is about and we discuss all day with such passion about it.

Yeah, but he binned it in Monaco, binned it in Spa, jumped the start in China, etc. The first half of his season was very erratic. The second half was brilliant. All the drivers in 2010 had their ups and downs and none of them, imo, was clearly better than the rest. So I think the Hamilton fan has a point.

Binned it in a free practice session at Monaco, and was very unlucky with the extent of damage. Vettel and Hamilton have had plenty of offs in free practice too, but without the unlucky consequences.

When putting Hamilton head and shoulders above the rest (as regularily propagated by your kind during the first years of his F1 career) becomes too obviously hilarious, let's at least try and pull everyone else down to his level, eh?

I doubt anyone outside his hardcore fan circle buys it, though, and not even everyone inside that circle. There's no question that Hamilton can beat everyone on any given day, he certainly has the ability and skill for it. Yet if you look at the two obvious other candidates for top spot among the drivers Alonso and Vettel, they never remotely had a season like Hamiltons 2011 where he basically wasted a competitive car and was soundly smashed by his teammate. They also have far fewer encounters with other drivers. They also don't have Hamiltons record of making decisive driving mistakes near the end of a WDC campaign.

I never mentioned Vettel here, and also Alonso F1 career is more impressive than Hamiltons. I thought Hamilton would improve after 2007/2008, and he seemingly did in 2010. up until Monza. Since then I do have to admit I'm not sure it is not a matter of not having enough luck or experience, but perhaps case of simply 'not having it'. That being said, in 2010. Alonso was no better than Vettel or Hamilton and that was my point. If you watched thread closely, it is more about Alonso comparisons with Schumacher/Senna and wheter he falls into this group of drivers or not. Both Vettel and Hamilton are still too young to give more objective views on their careers. If you really want me to talk about Vettel, I'd say that I suspect he is one of the guys that 'has it'.